Tenth talk – 12-18-2014

Thursday, December 18, 2014

F: 7:20 a.m. All right, let’s see where we go today. Miss Rita? I have received a couple more questions to address after we finish with the group Charles sent, but I haven’t gathered them into a list yet, and won’t have time or leisure to do so today. Shall we postpone, or can we continue”

R: It would be worth your while to find a simple way to chart out what I’m saying so that in one page, or one drawing – in some compact form — you have a précis of the circumstances I describe, so as to help you draw your own connections as you go. If I describe something and you are forgetting that there are not two realms (physical and non-physical) but one which appears to be two, you will be unable to properly fit the new piece into context.

F: Well, I was thinking, the other day, that we need to figure out some new language to replace “the guys” and all the other shorthand we have used up to now. I’m open to suggestion.

R: It is a bigger project than you might think, for of course it entirely reorganizes your thinking on the subject. But –

One world, inhabited in common by physical and non-physical alike, because of course any being must inhabit all and not [only] some dimensions of reality.

But inhabiting a dimension is not the same as being aware of it. What seems shadowy or non-existent to one set of awareness will be firm and obvious to another, and vice-versa. The physical world as you experience it – the densest part of reality – is but shadow to those whose awareness centers in more rarified dimensions. Similarly, the non-physical world as I am experiencing it is solid and definite to us, shadowy to you.

The fact that it is one reality, not two, helps explain – or will when you consider it – why those in the physical can “visit” non-physical reality and vice-versa. Have you ever thought that, in a sense, non-physical presences on the denser plane are ghostly – and so are physical presences on the non-physical?

F: No, it’s getting tangled up in language, as I said.

R: Just that much is enough to show you the problem and the opportunity. For as long as you can remember “one reality, not two,” you can hear the space between the words. But to the degree that language brings you back to two worlds, the new almost-felt perception slips away.

F: I was thinking you were going to give me the new language to use. But you want me to devise it.

R: Not devise it as much as feel it. Because, you are still connected with a physical body holding you in a stable material place; you are still in a mind with certain constraints on the breadth of connection it can hold in physical consciousness at any given time; and you live among others in the same conditions, which makes it far easier to know how and why things will be perceived in a given way.

F: My turf, for the moment, not yours.

R: Yes. Because of the links between us, we can communicate. Because of your links there, you can communicate among the embodied – now and anyone who comes across it later.

F: My sister Margaret and I visited the Fine Arts Museum in Richmond yesterday and in one of the rooms they had Egyptian exhibits. I was trying to feel back so many centuries, and failing. I spend time looking at a mosaic tile from the Romans, maybe 1800 years old, and tried to remember that those stones had been fitted by a living breathing alive-to-the-moment person, and could do it mostly intellectually, very little by any emotional process. The characters in a TV show or movie or novel are almost more real to me than these departed souls. Time is an enormous barrier.

R: No bigger than space, but you can traverse space. And you can learn to traverse time/space by way of the higher dimensions – what do you think you are doing here? Communicating with me is communicating beyond time-space; it is transcending time-space. And yet it is but little different from communicating with yourself.

F: Because we are all one.

R: Yes, all one. The shorthand description is that all the strands ultimately interconnect. It’s just a matter of – well, actually, that is yet another long topic, though a fascinating one. I could never quite see it, in the body; too many concepts to unlearn. But we’ll get to it, only not today.

F: Anything more to be said about “is there time?” before we move on?

R: The “more” will emerge in the course of the discussion, for everything changes with each new brush stroke, just as any painting, whether by judgment or words or ways of thinking.

F: I get that I need to organize your talking-points into compact size before we continue with Charles’ questions and go on to others. Why is that?

R: Because a reference to continually refer to – a reference that will grow and change as your background and structure change – will color everything new that is said. I can’t give it to you, but it will be a powerful tool, trust that. Your devising it will make it yours in the way that coloring a complicated diagram, or drawing a reproduction of an elaborate network of things, would do. And as you are to be the translator to others, it is well to have it in your mind as yours rather than as something you feel obliged to represent faithfully (which might make you less intuitive and overly logical in your approach).

F: So I gather that is a hint to any who are following the discussion to do the same for themselves, rather than waiting for me to produce it for them.

R: Modern technology makes certain ways of proceeding possible that never have been before. So today you can communicate daily, or hourly if you were to choose to do so, and can convey vast amounts of changed and changing materials easily. So, the method of transmitting knowledge and even wisdom has changed. Rather than one person or that person’s scribes writing down an invariant text to be transmitted, today the material can be sent and received piecemeal, and constructed by each recipient on the fly. Thus, instead of you being the wise man coming down from the heavens with the tablets, each person is tasked and is able to open to the wisdom according to his or her own circumstances.

F: I sent out hints, and encouragements, and it is up to each person what to do with it, how to connect thought to life, how much to accept, how much to modify or reject.

R: And it never has been any different, it is just faster now.

F: I predict not everybody will like the idea.

R: Not everybody will like anything. But these are the conditions for the explorers. Reading a map is not the same thing as occupying or even traversing the territory.

F: And this way will seem ponderously slow and repetitive as long as people are attempting to absorb the material quickly, judge it, and move on.

R: Something new – or perhaps I should say the newness within the familiar – is never really understood all at once. It is more a process of ripening with time.

F: I can see that we don’t have time enough now to proceed on the other questions Charles posed, let alone others. But there’s always tomorrow. At least, until there isn’t.

R: It is for you as it is for everybody. Nobody is obliged to do tomorrow’s work today any more than they are obliged (or even able) to be elsewhere while being wherever they are. Diligence is the best one can do, and all one need do.

F: I always got from the I Ching, “righteous persistence brings reward.” I take it as admonition. More tomorrow, I hope. Thanks, Rita.

2 thoughts on “Tenth talk – 12-18-2014

  1. This is great stuff, at least from what I’ve read so far. Oddly enough (or maybe not oddly at all) it helps answer a number of questions I have been asking recently. Perhaps I was directed to stumble upon your blog? Definitely. I can’t say I’m no longer confused but I’m less confused than I was and that is an imrpovement (trust me, it is.) Thank you and Rita for your service.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.